About every current sanction under Bush | The United States must obtain an agreement with the mullahs’ regime so to access Central Asia and also pacify Afghanistan -because the mullahs also support the Taliban- or even to have a good hear of the Arab street. This is a geopolitical necessity !

In exchange, Tehran requires impunity in Middle East at once for itself but also for its militias : the Hezbollah, the Hamas and the Mahdi army that are present in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. Such request is not acceptable because the regional boss is the United States and those problem regions cannot dispose of two bosses.

So to win out without paying such price, Washington led the Security Council to set up light sanctions against Tehran. If it had the intention to depose the mullahs, it would have acted such as in Iraq. But in Iran’s case, its objective was only to weaken the mullahs to make them give in and not depose them. Indeed thanks to their abilities in terrorism and Islamic propaganda, they will be useful to the Americans to islamize Central Asia and the West of China so to take those both oil, gas and mining regions away from Russian and Chinese influence and tie them to the American companies.

Expected shift in 2007 | Obviously this policy of light sanctions hasn’t been efficient : Tehran continued to help the Taliban to such a point that we even envisaged an American defeat in Afghanistan. In November 2007, a year before the American presidential election, Washington produced a report about the Iranian nuclear activities in which it was matter of a lasting break that was decided by Tehran regarding its military nuclear program. This report that opened up the way to dialogue was disparaged by the other States that have interests in Iran because they noticed with just cause the beginnings of a secret arrangement that would later make the United States a super gas and oil giant.

Thus the British who will lose their first secular world place on the oil market were the first to react by urging the AEIA to contest the report by mentioning the absence of any pause decided by Tehran in its nuclear program in order to become the main source of pressure on Tehran and impose on it a deal with the Six -Security Council + Germany- instead of a deal with the sole Americans.

Carried out shift in 2008 | However despite the British well-founded fear, it is necessary to specify that the initiative that was adopted by Bush wasn’t easy to apply by the latter because he always demanded the suspension of the Iranian nuclear activity previous to any dialogue. Washington carried out such shift with Obama who made this clause skip by offering a dialogue with no previous conditions to Tehran and whose objective was to involve Tehran against its will into a politically correct process of appeasement that is supposed to remove it from its prerogatives of regional anti-American and anti-Zionist agitator.

Despite such brilliant tactical approach, the situation didn’t evolve because Tehran continues to refuse dialogue by inventing all kind of excuses that are more or less logical. The most valid is that a dialogue with no condition of suspension of its nuclear activities means the recognition of Iran’s right to enrichment and thus a valid motive to put an end to the charges from the Security Council.

Russia supports such approach and also Great Britain in a way because it requested a freezing of the sanctions and it grants a regional legitimacy to the Hamas and the Hezbollah by receiving their representative in its Parliament.

The present situation | Nowadays the situation is roughly the same than the one before Obama’s arrival and the setting up of his appeasement process : Tehran doesn’t give in. In order to remedy to such refusal that exasperates it, Washington decided to qualify the content of the report dated of November 2007 about the stopping of the Iranian military nuclear activities in 2003. This is the object of the report that is published by the reversible John Kerry, president of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the American Senate.

Kerry’s slight difference | This report -which we can describe as a study- maintains that the mullahs had a break in 2003 because they did enormous military nuclear progresses while investigation and expertise previous reports that were made by the secret services used to mention the upcoming progresses. This study insinuates that Tehran already disposes of military nuclear know-how.

This text permits to enhance the endangering potential of the mullahs without calling the dialogue into question because it doesn’t contest neither the 2003’s break of military nuclear activities, contrary to what is done regularly by the AEIA, nor the mullahs’ genuineness. Nevertheless, it can permit to state the contrary if the mullahs don’t appear receptive to accept compromises.

This is besides a warning, but a second one, as Washington already mentioned orally a reworking of this 2007 report in February 2009 ! With a “report” made in this way, Washington ensures its laxity !

This is indeed very noticeable into Kerry’s sentiments. According to him, “the ultimate solution to this headache that is represented by the Iranian nuclear ambitions is not technical but political. Only a political decision from the rulers of the country can prevent Iran to produce one day the nuclear weapon. And this decision is by nature reversible.”

“Reversible” ! This is the promise of an unlimited dialogue !The feeble warning comes after feeble sanctions. This is a deadlock.